The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations Agenda 2030 represent an ambitious blueprint to reduce inequalities globally and achieve a sustainable future for all mankind. Meeting the SDGs for water requires an integrated approach to managing and allocating water resources, by involving all actors and stakeholders, and considering how water resources link different sectors of society. To date, water management practice is dominated by technocratic, scenario‐based approaches that may work well in the short term but can result in unintended consequences in the long term due to limited accounting of dynamic feedbacks between the natural, technical, and social dimensions of human‐water systems. The discipline of sociohydrology has an important role to play in informing policy by developing a generalizable understanding of phenomena that arise from interactions between water and human systems. To explain these phenomena, sociohydrology must address several scientific challenges to strengthen the field and broaden its scope. These include engagement with social scientists to accommodate social heterogeneity, power relations, trust, cultural beliefs, and cognitive biases, which strongly influence the way in which people alter, and adapt to, changing hydrological regimes. It also requires development of new methods to formulate and test alternative hypotheses for the explanation of emergent phenomena generated by feedbacks between water and society. Advancing sociohydrology in these ways therefore represents a major contribution toward meeting the targets set by the SDGs, the societal grand challenge of our time.

One common approach to cope with floods is the implementation of structural flood protection measures, such as levees or flood-control reservoirs, which substantially reduce the probability of flooding at the time of implementation. Numerous scholars have problematized this approach. They have shown that increasing the levels of flood protection can attract more settlements and high-value assets in the areas protected by the new measures. Other studies have explored how structural measures can generate a sense of complacency, which can act to reduce preparedness. These paradoxical risk changes have been described as levee effect, safe development paradox or safety dilemma. In this commentary, we briefly review this phenomenon by critically analysing the intended benefits and unintended effects of structural flood protection, and then we propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to uncover these paradoxical dynamics of risk.

The dichotomy of conservation vs. sustainable development has generated numerous debates since the introduction of the latter in the late 1980s. In the recent past, many initiatives to address the issue gained ground worldwide, such as ecotourism, a form of tourism that takes place in natural areas, sustains local communities, and involves a learning experience. Even though it might look like the perfect tool to strengthen the link between conservation and sustainable development, ecotourism faces many challenges. Through a case study of Monviso Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, this research aims at understanding local stakeholders’ perspectives on the matter. A series of interviews were conducted to explore the possibility for ecotourism to act as a learning tool. Results show that ecotourism had some positive effects, such as the creation of a network for collaboration between various stakeholders. However, negative perceptions still play an inhibiting role. It is discussed that this might be a consequence of one main factor: a lack of proper environmental education. Adjustments in the language and methods used in the educational system and a change of course at higher governmental levels might support ecotourism as a learning tool and a catalyst for sustainable development.

Understanding what makes people vulnerable to flooding is key in informing the risk management process. Non-structural measures, such as risk communication, can reduce vulnerability by improving flood risk awareness, but they require a deep understanding of which factors influence risk awareness, and how. We analysed and untangled the role of experience with, and knowledge of, floods by conducting a survey in a municipality in North-eastern Italy that was hit by a flash flood in 2018. The results show that previous experience with floods influences risk awareness not only directly, but also indirectly through the knowledge that was gained from that experience. In addition, specific (as opposed to generic) definitions of experience have been found to be better suited for exploring their effects on risk awareness. Based on the literature and on our results, we propose an experience-knowledge typology to help unravel the complex role that these two variables play in shaping flood risk awareness.

Hydrogeological hazards are increasingly causing damage worldwide due to climatic and socio-economic changes. Building resilient communities is crucial to reduce potential losses. To this end, one of the first steps is to understand how people perceive potential threats around them. This study aims at exploring how risk awareness of, and preparedness to, face hydrological hazards changes over time. A cohort study was carried out in two villages in the northeastern Italian Alps, Romagnano and Vermiglio, affected by debris flows in 2000 and 2002. Surveys were conducted in 2005 and 2018, and the results compared. The survey data show that both awareness and preparedness decreased over time. We attribute this change to the fact that no event had occurred in a long time and to a lack of proper risk communication strategies. The outcomes of this study contribute to socio-hydrological modelling by providing empirical data on human behaviour dynamics.

To explore and address complex water-related issues, true collaborative, interdisciplinary research at the interface of hydrology and social science is necessary. Accordingly, hydrologists are increasingly working with social sciences and becoming involved in fieldwork with participants. With the overarching aim of facilitating collaboration and interdisciplinary water research, here we discuss important considerations and guiding principles for hydrologists, both those new to and those already familiar with interdisciplinary research, who are: (i) involved in fieldwork with participants; and (ii) working more collaboratively with social scientists. Drawing on first-hand experiences, this paper combines theory and experience from hydrologists and social scientists from their various interdisciplinary research projects to better understand key ethical, theoretical and practical considerations when working with participants. Complementary to this, we discuss the barriers and opportunities in collaborative interdisciplinary research. Facilitating these practices and understandings for hydrologists is essential to strengthen collaboration and to develop more holistic, successful research.